Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Jacqui Lambie Network) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 makes improvements to the National Redress Scheme, which commenced on 1 July 2018. The scheme was established in response to recommendations from the Royal Commission into Industrial Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It is set to run for 10 years. To be eligible for redress, the abuse must have occurred before 1 July 2018. The act that established the redress scheme requires a review of the operation of the scheme after its second anniversary and also after its eighth anniversary. At the moment, we are halfway through the operation of the scheme and we are still finding ways to make the scheme better. I think that is a really good thing. I have said it before and I will say it again: I am in this place to make things better for people. No law is perfect, and it likely never will be, but, if we can do what we can to make improvements when we've been told that we should, I think that's a day's work well done.

No changes that we make in this place can undo the terrible abuse of children at the hands of institutions that were supposed to protect them. A local victim-survivor in Launceston—I will call him 'John'—shared some thoughts on the scheme that he said I could share in this chamber. John said, 'No amount of money can ever compensate a person for a lost childhood, but these relatively small payments can make a difference for those struggling to make ends meet.'

Child sexual abuse robs a person so much of their potential, including the ability to get, secure and maintain employment. Too often victims-survivors struggle to get the support services they need. John said the Redress Scheme is an unfortunate necessity and it is the nation's shame that it is a necessity. I agree with John. I'm sorry for the childhoods that were robbed. I'm sorry for the way our most trusted institutions betrayed these children and their families. I'm sorry that nothing that we do in this place can repair the lives lost and the pain that victims-survivors and their families suffered and continue to suffer. My hope is that in this place we can make things a little better for people who were abused as children. The reason there are reviews into the operation of the scheme is so that improvements can be made periodically when necessary. That is what this bill does in response to the final report of the second year of the National Redress Scheme.

The review took place between July 2020 and March 2021. It involved meetings with survivors, support services, government agencies and ministers. The review also received submissions. The independent reviewer delivered her report in 2021. That report contained 38 recommendations. The government provided a final response to the report in 2023, supporting the vast majority of the recommendations. The government then drafted this bill in consultation with the Ministers' Redress Scheme Governance Board, comprising Commonwealth, state and territory ministers responsible for redress. The board has agreed to the changes to the act contained in the bill. I know that the independent reviewer and the department have put a lot of hard work into improvements to the Redress Scheme.

It is important to note the implementation of the Redress Scheme is overseen by the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. There has and continues to be a lot of consultation, and in my opinion that is a great thing. I understand the changes to the scheme and its operation made by this bill are not going to satisfy all victims and survivors. John, the victim-survivor I spoke about earlier, had some suggestions for improvement of the Redress Scheme. One suggestion was to allow for recipients of financial redress to also seek further financial redress through civil actions. I see why John wants further improvements to be made. The maximum compensation of $150,000 falls well short of what some people would get if they went through the court system and were successful. But this is not what the royal commission recommended. In fact, the royal commission recommended that the making of a monetary payment through the Redress Scheme should require an applicant to release the scheme, including the contributing government or governments and the institution, from any further liability for institutional child sexual abuse, by executing a deed of release.

I also know that many people don't want to spend years of their life in court. They just want to move past that chapter of their life. They don't want to have to interact with the institution that was responsible for the harm they suffered. The Redress Scheme ensures that applicants will not need to deal directly with the institution in which they were abused. Another suggestion from John was that the Redress Scheme recipients should expect that a finding in their favour could automatically trigger an institutional investigation into the named abuser. At present the scheme does share what is called 'protected information', including sending reports to the relevant law enforcement authorities for child safety purposes. The bill makes further amendments that authorise an institution to disclose this protected information for the purposes of an internal investigation or disciplinary proceeding. It will always be hard to strike the right balance with legislation like this. But what I hope people will take from the passage of this bill and the work of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme is the commitment of this parliament and governments across Australia to create a trauma informed, equitable and balanced redress scheme.

We know that there is always room for improvement. Like I said earlier, there are processes in place for further review of the operation of this scheme and for further improvement. That's why I support this bill. In doing so, I acknowledge and thank victim-survivors like John for their courage in continuing to share their stories and thoughts on improving the Redress Scheme.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—The National Redress Scheme was recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It was set up to acknowledge the harm done to people who experienced child sexual abuse while in so-called care. The scheme, in many ways, operates as an acknowledgement of the truth of the abuse of children within Australian institutions—in churches, in schools, in hospitals, in prisons and more. It is an attempt to respond to the failure of the Commonwealth and other government and non-government institutions in upholding human rights obligations, including the right of every child to protection by society and the state, and the right of every child to protection from all forms of physical and mental violence, injury or abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse.

However, there are deep flaws in the scheme and the government, at this point, has not prioritised the proper funding or administration of the scheme, despite knowing how difficult and hard it is to navigate. The application process is hard, complex and traumatising. There are different schemes in every jurisdiction, making it even harder. The wait times to process an application are, on average, 11.8 months. The amount the Redress Scheme offers is way less than you could claim in a court, with the average payment being around $88,000. And accepting a redress offer forces you to give up all rights to make a future claim in court.

The Redress Scheme is supposed to be a more accessible and safer avenue for compensation compared to the long, expensive, traumatising court process. Help and support is supposed to be available to those putting in applications. However, without changes the Redress Scheme will reflect the same problems as the court system—a long, traumatising process with little help along the way, less money for compensation and it lets those who committed the abuse off the hook for future court proceedings. Ultimately, there can never be actual redress for the pain and generational consequences that have been caused by the abuse that was suffered, and my thoughts are with all who had and who continue to have to endure this.

It is also important to point out the large proportion of the applications to the scheme are likely to be members of the stolen generation's survivors. We have already lost too many who will never ever see any justice. The stolen generations are a result of the genocide in this country, which continues to this day as First Nations children are taken from our families at alarming and increasing rates and extremely disproportionately to what is happening to non-First Nations children.

The impacts of intergenerational trauma from past and ongoing government policies of forced removals are well known, evidenced and documented. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has reported on the poorer health, social and emotional wellbeing and economic outcomes experienced by stolen generation survivors and their descendants. Their descendants are experiencing the exact same systemic abuse. There are currently over 25,000 First Nations children removed from their families—in 2024. First Nations children are 26 times more likely than their peers to be incarcerated. The Yoorrook Justice Commission in Victoria has found that First Nations children in Victoria are on a pipeline from out-of-home care to prison from before they are born. These are places that continue the abuse on our children rather than prevent or redress it.

This is what systemic racism looks like. This is what apartheid looks like. This is what genocide looks like. The practice of First Nations child removal in this country—under the Labor government, mind you—involves both systemic racial discrimination and genocide as defined by international law, and this is what the 1997 Bringing them home report found. It seems the government has learned nothing. While it spends millions on compensation for past abuse, it traumatises and abuses a whole new generation of First Peoples children at the same time.

In saying all of this, I do want to acknowledge the importance of the scheme, especially for those who it has helped. It is now in its sixth year of operation, and for survivors and their families the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 makes important changes which remove some of the barriers to applying. Importantly, this includes changes so that those who are currently being held in prison will be able to apply.

It is important to remember that prison is not a place for what you call 'bad people'—in fact, the people responsible for the worst atrocities and pain caused to others are most often not held to account. The reality is that there are more survivors of rape and sexual assault in prison than there are rapists themselves, and there is well-documented evidence on the overrepresentation of child abuse survivors in the prison population. And, horrifically, this country's prisons are, as you know, full of First Peoples who have been targeted by the racist police dogs their whole lives for nothing more than the colour of their skin. Our women are the most incarcerated population in the world. First Nations women are the most incarcerated women in the world, though our women have cared for and sustained the oldest living culture in the world and these beautiful lands for millennia.

While people in prison can now apply to the scheme, some people with some serious criminal convictions may still be barred from accessing redress. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out that these restrictions could be in breach of the entitlement of survivors to claim redress and limit the right to an effective remedy. It is also against equality and nondiscrimination. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also noted that victims of violations of human rights within Australia's jurisdiction are entitled to a remedy, irrespective of their residency or citizenship.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order, Senator Thorpe. I have Senator Ayres on a point of order.

Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to confirm the language that was used before. I think Senator Thorpe will know what I'm referring to. I don't intend to repeat it, but I ask that you ask her to withdraw.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Ayres. Senator Thorpe, I was having a conversation with the whips about where we're at in the program, but I would ask you to consider the language that you may have used that may have been unparliamentary, withdraw and then continue your remarks.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Should I continue?

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I asked you to withdraw.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I said 'police dogs'. I didn't say, 'Police are dogs.'

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for clarifying your comments. You can continue your remarks.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Our women are the most incarcerated women on the planet. I wonder why, after that interjection! Our women have cared for and sustained the oldest living culture on the planet, and we're still a target in this place when people think that we've said something that we haven't. I would have been locked up for that in the street.

While people in prison can now apply to the scheme, some people with some serious criminal convictions may still be barred from accessing redress. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out that these restrictions could be in breach of the entitlement of survivors to claim redress and they limit the right to an effective remedy. They are also against equality and non-discrimination. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights also noted that victims of violations of human rights within Australia's jurisdiction are entitled to a remedy irrespective of their residency or citizenship status. People who have suffered horrific abuse deserve compensation.

My amendment would allow those non-citizens and non-permanent residents residing in Australia to have access to this scheme. It is critical that the government ensure access to the scheme and safety for survivors. The people applying to this scheme deserve to be supported through this process. Critical to this is ensuring proper funding for vital support services. Services on the ground are currently already flooded with demand, and applications only look to increase, putting further pressure on them. When some barriers to the scheme were removed previously, the case backlog almost doubled in 10 months.

Following the passing of this bill, increased pressures on the system and support services can be expected once again. To be effective and safe, this scheme must be delivered in a way that heals and avoids all risks of retraumatising survivors. This means large increases of funding to both the scheme itself and available support services. This funding of services is essential to ensure that those applying to the scheme are treated with respect, dignity and safety and to ensure the scheme avoids all risks of retraumatising survivors so that it can contribute to healing and justice. This includes increasing resourcing to stolen generations organisations and community controlled healing services; improving access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services and interventions; providing trauma-aware healing-informed training for all individuals working across the design and implementation of the scheme, including external organisations and consultants; and carefully regulating and monitoring non-First Nations organisations operating in the space to ensure that they meet quality, cultural and ethical standards. This must be ensured across jurisdictions, including in remote and regional areas where English might not be the first language. These issues are a priority.

My second reading amendment highlights some of these matters. I want the government to stop treating as an afterthought the harm they have caused and continue to inflict. I seek leave to move the second reading amendment standing in my name.

Leave granted.

I move:

At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:

(a) a large proportion of First People applicants to the National Redress Scheme are likely to be Stolen Generations Survivors, and to be effective and safe it is imperative the scheme:

(i) ensures access and safety throughout the process as a priority,

(ii) be treated with the importance and integrity that survivors deserve, and

(iii) be delivered in a way that avoids all risks of re-traumatising survivors; and,

(b) fundamental to achieving these goals is ensuring appropriate support services receive proper, ongoing funding including:

(i) increasing resourcing to ensure proper, ongoing funding to Stolen Generations organisations and First Nations community-controlled healing services,

(ii) ensuring proper, ongoing funding for redress support services, to allow them to provide access to a suite of counselling services, including financial and legal,

(iii) improving access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed professionals, services and interventions,

(iv) ensuring trauma-aware, healing-informed training for all individuals working across the design and implementation of the scheme, including external organisations and consultants, and

(v) for non-Indigenous organisations operating in the space, providing careful regulation and monitoring to ensure that they meet the quality, cultural and ethical standards required of the scheme's operations; and

(c) the above must be ensured across jurisdictions, including in remote and regional areas where English might not be the first language; and

(d) there is documented evidence that prisoners are more likely to have been victims of child sexual abuse compared with the general population; and

(e) the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has pointed out that restrictions to redress for those with certain serious criminal convictions could be in breach of the entitlement of survivors to claim redress, limit the right to an effective remedy, and be in breach of notions of equality and non-discrimination.

Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the second reading amendment moved by leave by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.